The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
To me it seemed like, since news outlets have had his book for a bit already, and nothing from it was lighting up the news, or at least competing with the Cohen stuff, the book was probably just a lot of stuff we already knew from the narrative of someone who clearly thinks very highly of their own moral authority.
So I thought it was, along with Comey at this point, safely ignorable. Presumably the FBI and Mueller have anything noteworthy from Comey they need, so we're good. Let the dude get his rocks off on his tour, make a few bucks, whatever. That isn't to say I don't have opinions about election related stuff with the guy, but it isn't for this thread.
“I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook and have something happen indirectly that I believe they’re duty-bound to do directly,” Comey said, according to a transcript of the interview. “People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values.”
Fuck the fuck off you fucking fucker. We have a representative government for a god damn reason you stupid son of a bitch. We elect people to speak for us and to govern us accordingly. So, in the course of the government functioning, that is run by said elected officials, they find that one of the people leading the country is breaking the law? The laws passed by the people we elected to pass them give those people, who represent the voters, the authority to uphold said laws, rules, and regulations. Yeah, the whole checks and balances thing is also there for a reason. If they find that someone else in the government should be removed, we gave them the fucking authority to make that god damn decision. That is the way it is supposed to work.
Holy fucking shit that shit pisses me off. The government that represents the voters would let those voters off the hook if it functions the way it was designed?
Fuck.
You.
Colbert covered that Monday night. Something like "Comey thinks the American people deserve three more years of Donald Trump."
If this was a "dislike", that'd be one thing. Trump's approval is in the toilet, etc, and he can't get his agenda moving, lame duck for three years. But this is MASSIVE ethical and potentially criminal actions by the CiC. If that's not a reason to use the powers available, when is? What's Comey's "red line" for impeachment? Cause it doesn't look like there is one. At which point I'll echo...
Fuck.
You.
Comey.
We must respect the institutions of our democracy and ensure that it discharges its duties in a timely manner, with no interference from personal concerns.
Unless it turns out I fucked up, in which case, you should really clean this up for me.
Coming back to this, because it keeps bugging me. Comey's insistence that Trump's fate be left up to the voters rather than impeachment is just galling to me, for the exact same reason that McConnell's refusal to even hold a vote for the Supreme Court was so disgusting.
Yes, as Americans, we do ostensibly live under a democracy, and pick our leaders. But we also by our consent consign ourselves to the rules of a Constitution and a set of laws, and to discharge the duties and responsibilities contained therein. Encouraging the use of the voting public as a shield against one's responsibilities is, in my view, rank cowardice.
I think he's more worried about the American populace thinking the jobs done at impeachment.
Yes. When people talk about the government's monopoly on force, this is exactly what they're talking about.
I have often been confused by my lay interpretation of violence and the term as used in, say, discussions of politics or sociology. English needs to steal some new words to separate the two.
Yeah basically! It might be legal, it might be just, but it's all force at the end of the day.
Either we have laws and enforce them, or there are no laws, and we can all do whatever we like. From stealing to feed ourselves, to murdering those we feel deserve it, to dumping horrific chemicals in water supplies. Prosecuting folks for doing those things would be morally wrong right? Because all policing is abhorrent violence we cannot condone.
literally no one in this thread has said this.
It's all force, and broadly saying "force is great, in fact, we should make sure that since people don't fear god anymore (a baseless assertion, by the way), they should mega fear the state" is blithely unaware of how the State actually metes out its violence. Because it is absolutely discriminatory. There are people who will never fear the state and do huge, society harming ill. And there are people who already fear the state and fear it because it is actively, continuously damaging them.
He is not saying this shit in a vacuum. American culture exists, and if you just fart out "yeah maaaaan, people should fear the long arm of the law because the law is great" I'm going to roll my eyes. It's incredibly obtuse and only serves those who will never be touched by its influence.
it's like saying you know what, everyone should fear cats in this country, cats will fucking eat you if you step out of line
and part of the country is full of mice who are already eaten daily by cats, and part of the country are dogs who never will be. You haven't said anything useful, instead you've actively re-enforced the status quo.
To me it seemed like, since news outlets have had his book for a bit already, and nothing from it was lighting up the news, or at least competing with the Cohen stuff, the book was probably just a lot of stuff we already knew from the narrative of someone who clearly thinks very highly of their own moral authority.
So I thought it was, along with Comey at this point, safely ignorable. Presumably the FBI and Mueller have anything noteworthy from Comey they need, so we're good. Let the dude get his rocks off on his tour, make a few bucks, whatever. That isn't to say I don't have opinions about election related stuff with the guy, but it isn't for this thread.
“I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook and have something happen indirectly that I believe they’re duty-bound to do directly,” Comey said, according to a transcript of the interview. “People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values.”
Fuck the fuck off you fucking fucker. We have a representative government for a god damn reason you stupid son of a bitch. We elect people to speak for us and to govern us accordingly. So, in the course of the government functioning, that is run by said elected officials, they find that one of the people leading the country is breaking the law? The laws passed by the people we elected to pass them give those people, who represent the voters, the authority to uphold said laws, rules, and regulations. Yeah, the whole checks and balances thing is also there for a reason. If they find that someone else in the government should be removed, we gave them the fucking authority to make that god damn decision. That is the way it is supposed to work.
Holy fucking shit that shit pisses me off. The government that represents the voters would let those voters off the hook if it functions the way it was designed?
Fuck.
You.
Colbert covered that Monday night. Something like "Comey thinks the American people deserve three more years of Donald Trump."
If this was a "dislike", that'd be one thing. Trump's approval is in the toilet, etc, and he can't get his agenda moving, lame duck for three years. But this is MASSIVE ethical and potentially criminal actions by the CiC. If that's not a reason to use the powers available, when is? What's Comey's "red line" for impeachment? Cause it doesn't look like there is one. At which point I'll echo...
Fuck.
You.
Comey.
We must respect the institutions of our democracy and ensure that it discharges its duties in a timely manner, with no interference from personal concerns.
Unless it turns out I fucked up, in which case, you should really clean this up for me.
Coming back to this, because it keeps bugging me. Comey's insistence that Trump's fate be left up to the voters rather than impeachment is just galling to me, for the exact same reason that McConnell's refusal to even hold a vote for the Supreme Court was so disgusting.
Yes, as Americans, we do ostensibly live under a democracy, and pick our leaders. But we also by our consent consign ourselves to the rules of a Constitution and a set of laws, and to discharge the duties and responsibilities contained therein. Encouraging the use of the voting public as a shield against one's responsibilities is, in my view, rank cowardice.
I think he's more worried about the American populace thinking the jobs done at impeachment.
Why would that be his issue? He seems to have a personal problem with Trump, not the overall rot in the Republican party.
Yeah in a certain rarified academic jargon realm, any action which generates conflict of any sort is "violence".
Ever been arrested, spool? Because even when it goes nicely it's not what you'd call pleasant and if they have the slightest reason to it will get literal-definition violent fast. Like "You aren't following instructions exactly and instantly so I'm going to slam you to the floor and drag your limbs into cuffing position".
It is not what Comey meant and if that's what you are hearing, shift your frame to that of the common usage instead of the academic social justice jargon.
Heaven forbid we expect the Ur-Cop to explore what violence actually is with regards to his world view and profession.
Also, the concept of a state monopoly on violence goes back to the 1500s so I think that might predate notions of "academic social justice".
Meanwhile the dragon is, in fact, burning shit down. Can’t be too picky about the method of slaying, metaphorically speaking. Or I guess you can if, like Comey, it’s not your crops going up in flames.
The idea that Comey has no skin in the game is utterly ridiculous nonsense. The system is everything to him! His reputation is being nuked repeatedly, from all sides, starting with POTUS and going right the way down to this small forum where people call him a racist for no reason.
On the other hand, there no world in which Comey doesn't die old and comfortable surrounded by a significant amount of wealth. The only thing on the line for him is his belief that fear of the police should fill the void that fear of god used to.
Groundless hyperbole and misrepresentation! You are sounding a lot more like Trump that I feel like you would be comfortable with on reflection.
Meanwhile the dragon is, in fact, burning shit down. Can’t be too picky about the method of slaying, metaphorically speaking. Or I guess you can if, like Comey, it’s not your crops going up in flames.
The idea that Comey has no skin in the game is utterly ridiculous nonsense. The system is everything to him! His reputation is being nuked repeatedly, from all sides, starting with POTUS and going right the way down to this small forum where people call him a racist for no reason.
On the other hand, there no world in which Comey doesn't die old and comfortable surrounded by a significant amount of wealth. The only thing on the line for him is his belief that fear of the police should fill the void that fear of god used to.
Groindless hyperbole and misrepresentation! You are sounding a lot more like Trump that I feel like you would be comfortable with on reflection.
It's a literal quote from him I posted on the last page dude.
No it is not.
What he said was:
"In its place, people must fear going to jail. They must fear their lives being turned upside down. They must fear their pictures splashed on newspapers and websites. People must fear having their names forever associated with a criminal act if we are to have a nation with the rule of law"
Not "fear of the police". Fear of the legal consequences of lying to the police, since in his view the moral ones are gone.
That's not even a fine distinction! It's a clear and obvious one.
This seems a lot like "people shouldn't fear the police, they should fear the consequences of resisting arrest!"
Holy god,
Are you going for a "most uncharitable reading of the decade" award or something?
Yeah in a certain rarified academic jargon realm, any action which generates conflict of any sort is "violence".
Ever been arrested, spool? Because even when it goes nicely it's not what you'd call pleasant and if they have the slightest reason to it will get literal-definition violent fast. Like "You aren't following instructions exactly and instantly so I'm going to slam you to the floor and drag your limbs into cuffing position".
In that section where he talks about going after Martha Stewart because he recalled taking down a black preacher for the same offense and realized his bias - a lot of people think that he should have taken away the lesson of perhaps he should have stopped going after the black preachers.
To me it seemed like, since news outlets have had his book for a bit already, and nothing from it was lighting up the news, or at least competing with the Cohen stuff, the book was probably just a lot of stuff we already knew from the narrative of someone who clearly thinks very highly of their own moral authority.
So I thought it was, along with Comey at this point, safely ignorable. Presumably the FBI and Mueller have anything noteworthy from Comey they need, so we're good. Let the dude get his rocks off on his tour, make a few bucks, whatever. That isn't to say I don't have opinions about election related stuff with the guy, but it isn't for this thread.
“I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook and have something happen indirectly that I believe they’re duty-bound to do directly,” Comey said, according to a transcript of the interview. “People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values.”
Fuck the fuck off you fucking fucker. We have a representative government for a god damn reason you stupid son of a bitch. We elect people to speak for us and to govern us accordingly. So, in the course of the government functioning, that is run by said elected officials, they find that one of the people leading the country is breaking the law? The laws passed by the people we elected to pass them give those people, who represent the voters, the authority to uphold said laws, rules, and regulations. Yeah, the whole checks and balances thing is also there for a reason. If they find that someone else in the government should be removed, we gave them the fucking authority to make that god damn decision. That is the way it is supposed to work.
Holy fucking shit that shit pisses me off. The government that represents the voters would let those voters off the hook if it functions the way it was designed?
Fuck.
You.
Colbert covered that Monday night. Something like "Comey thinks the American people deserve three more years of Donald Trump."
If this was a "dislike", that'd be one thing. Trump's approval is in the toilet, etc, and he can't get his agenda moving, lame duck for three years. But this is MASSIVE ethical and potentially criminal actions by the CiC. If that's not a reason to use the powers available, when is? What's Comey's "red line" for impeachment? Cause it doesn't look like there is one. At which point I'll echo...
Fuck.
You.
Comey.
We must respect the institutions of our democracy and ensure that it discharges its duties in a timely manner, with no interference from personal concerns.
Unless it turns out I fucked up, in which case, you should really clean this up for me.
Coming back to this, because it keeps bugging me. Comey's insistence that Trump's fate be left up to the voters rather than impeachment is just galling to me, for the exact same reason that McConnell's refusal to even hold a vote for the Supreme Court was so disgusting.
Yes, as Americans, we do ostensibly live under a democracy, and pick our leaders. But we also by our consent consign ourselves to the rules of a Constitution and a set of laws, and to discharge the duties and responsibilities contained therein. Encouraging the use of the voting public as a shield against one's responsibilities is, in my view, rank cowardice.
I think he's more worried about the American populace thinking the jobs done at impeachment.
Why would that be his issue? He seems to have a personal problem with Trump, not the overall rot in the Republican party.
yeah its very paternalistic and seemingly feels the country needs to attone for electing trump by dealing with Trump for the rest of his presidency. Borderline accelerationist in thinking "well if shit gets real bad people will understand" ignoring how for a lot of people bad means "dead, in jail, or deported" Its easy to ask the country pay for their sins when a person like Comey will not deal with any of those issues.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah, he's a Republican who was director of the fucking FBI. His politics (especially about police and the fucking thereof) are not going to prove satisfactory to anyone on this forum.
He's a Republican who was a W's Deputy Attorney General who signed off on waterboarding, when he knew it was torture and illegal by his own admission. Only in Trump world does his villainy seem gray instead of the black.
Yeah, he's a Republican who was director of the fucking FBI. His politics (especially about police and the fucking thereof) are not going to prove satisfactory to anyone on this forum.
He's a Republican who was a W's Deputy Attorney General who signed off on waterboarding, when he knew it was torture and illegal by his own admission. Only in Trump world does his villainy seem gray instead of the black.
Plus the hundreds of muslims and muslim-looking people the FBI sucked up in the 2000s
Comey’s reputation is in shreds because he decided to let his actions be determined by the letter next to someone’s name.
Even now he calls Trump unfit for office but insists we mustn’t remove the Republican from power.
You realize he's aware that if we remove the Republican in power, the next guy is a Republican as well, right?
After the one he specifically helped us removed. He demonstrably prefers America suffer under his screw up than admit his behavior was horrendous and damaging. He insists that “we” must not let ourselves off the hook as if “we” are all as culpable as he is or will all suffer equally.
He’s utterly devoid of instrospection in any meaningful fashion.
Which is ultimately the thing he keeps getting shit on for from the left in my experience. He simply refuses to admit he fucked up. He can't do it. It comes through in his interviews and in the quotes from the book.
But Comey’s insistence on upholding the law is devotional to the point of ruthlessness, as he makes clear when explaining the need to send Martha Stewart to jail in 2003 for lying about an insider stock tip she had received.
“People must fear the consequences of lying in the justice system or the system can’t work,” Comey writes. “There was once a time when most people worried about going to hell if they violated an oath taken in the name of God. That divine deterrence has slipped away from our modern cultures. In its place, people must fear going to jail. They must fear their lives being turned upside down. They must fear their pictures splashed on newspapers and websites. People must fear having their names forever associated with a criminal act if we are to have a nation with the rule of law.”
This is ridiculous and dangerous, because it suggests Americans are insufficiently cowed by a necessarily God-like wrath of the machinery of law enforcement. Comey is worried that the country risks degenerating into criminality and sloth — and all that’s standing between us and chaos is the FBI’s lash and our submission to it.
In a short chapter on racial injustice, Comey describes the killings of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott and Freddie Gray as “tragic deaths.” But he turns the killings around, lamenting that they “dominated perceptions of the police. They swamped and overshadowed millions of positive, professional encounters between citizens and police officers, and extraordinary anger was building toward all uniformed law enforcement.” Yes, Comey really went there — blaming the victims of police abuse for making people upset that police were abusing them.
Comey did not hide these views while at the FBI, and after making a speech in Chicago in 2015 that was not well-received by the civil rights community, he was summoned to the Oval Office by President Barack Obama. Comey describes that session in his book, and he seems to have doubled down, telling the country’s first black president that the law enforcement community was upset at the way Obama had used the phrase “mass incarceration.” It was offensive, Comey told the president.
“I thought the term was both inaccurate and insulting to a lot of good people in law enforcement who cared deeply about helping people trapped in dangerous neighborhoods,” Comey writes. “It was inaccurate in the sense that there was nothing ‘mass’ about the incarceration: every defendant was charged individually, represented individually by counsel, convicted by a court individually, sentenced individually, reviewed on appeal individually, and incarcerated. That added up to a lot of people in jail, but there was nothing ‘mass’ about it.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, the harbringer of divine justice against Trump.
Nah, the Intercept is being partisan and silly in this quote. Comey is dead right that people should fear the consequence of lying to the FBI because doing it with impunity is corrosive to the whole system.
You can't run a nation on a system you don't believe in. Interpretation or execution we can argue about, but if you think it's fine to just ignore or flaunt it, we have problems. Moreover, it's crazy not to expect the guy in charge of pursuing the system's goals not to believe in it!
Also I feel him on the mass incarceration thing. We all know that Technically Correct is the best kind, and he kind of is technically correct...
I fail to see how he's technically correct. The US has the most mass of mass incarceration on the planet and it's horrific. And local law enforcement is extremely dubious.
Just read Comey's quote. It's not Mass Incarceration, it's a shitload of individual incarcerations. He thinks the term evokes rounding up tons of people and throwing them in prison, but he sees it as a series of individual cases. It's right there in the quote.
The subtext of the quote is, to me, that people who use the phrase ‘mass incarceration’ are suggesting that a lot of folks are locked up unfairly, and that James Comey disagrees. They were all charged! They all had counsel! Never mind that our laws and our enforcement are often unjust and overly harsh. Never mind that the system disproportionality targets minorities. Never mind that the kind of counsel a poor person has access to is much worse than the kind a rich person does. Never mind that other first world countries don’t lock up near as many people as we do.
There's also the hugely racist undertones of a white conservative law enforcement official whitesplanning to the first black president "No, see, you don't understand mass incarceration, not really".
I don't think he intended it as specifically racist, it strikes me more as just clueless and sanctimonious, but it's kinda flabbergasting.
Well the thing about mass incarceration is that while there is certainly an element of racism at play, black community leaders also pushed for stricter laws themselves.
James Forman Jr. divides his superb and shattering first book, “Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America,” into two parts: “Origins” and “Consequences.” But the temptation is to scribble in, before “Consequences,” a modifier: “Unforeseen.” That is truly what this book is about, and what makes it tragic to the bone: How people, acting with the finest of intentions and the largest of hearts, could create a problem even more grievous than the one they were trying to solve.
A wide range of African-American leaders championed tougher penalties for drug crimes and gun possession in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. It was the one option they consistently had, and it seemed a perfectly responsible, moral position. Wasn’t the safety of black law-abiding citizens a basic civil right?
The list of those who voiced support for such measures may today seem surprising. It includes Maxine Waters, the current California congresswoman, back when she was a state assemblywoman, and Johnnie Cochran, when he was an assistant district attorney in Los Angeles. In 1988, when running for president, Jesse Jackson told The Chicago Tribune: “No one has the right to kill our children. I won’t take it from the Klan with a rope; I won’t take it from a neighbor with dope.”
Eric Holder, who would become Barack Obama’s attorney general, may have played the most astonishing role in escalating the war on crime. During the mid-90s, when he was the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, he started Operation Ceasefire, an initiative that gave Washington police wide latitude to stop cars and search them for guns. “I’m not going to be naïve about it,” Holder said at a community meeting in 1995. “The people who will be stopped will be young black males, overwhelmingly.”
He knew the roots of crime were complex. He said so in interviews. But his immediate concern was reducing harm in the present.
Over the past half-century, in moments when black leadership has had the power to direct policy, such leaders have reliably chosen to embrace the types of “tough on crime” tactics that have led the US to becoming the most carceral nation in the world. For the most part, such leaders did so with the broad support of constituents seeking safety from the urban crises that colored the second half of the 20th century.
In many cases, what was being handed down was the type of hardline answer to crime usually placed solely at the feet of conservatives like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But in Washington, for example, it was a black electorate and leadership that killed a 1975 bill to decriminalize marijuana.
“This was not a story in which a white majority, acting out of indifference or hostility to black lives, imposed tough criminal penalties that disproportionately burdened a black minority,” Forman writes.
“Quite the opposite: the leaders of the decriminalization effort were white and … it was blacks who killed marijuana decriminalization in DC.”
In his book, Forman writes: “To many African American observers, the revolving door” by which criminals would be punished lightly and let go “was discriminatory”.
It seems unfair to me to put the blame entirely on law enforcement for doing what they were asked to do.
Did you, like, miss the 2016 election? There was huge talk about this. Yeah, the politics of the 90s were very different on this issue.
The thing is, it's fucking 20 years later and the politics on this issue have shifted dramatically and these are not the positions held by current black leadership. Like, you know, the President fucking Obama.
It is also entirely fair to place the blame on law enforcement since they have consistently been shown to apply the law in a racists manner on multiple levels. No one claimed they were the only ones responsible and that claim isn't germane to the point anyway.
It is absolutely true that mass incarceration is a problem in the US and specifically the mass incarceration of black men and that law enforcement has a hand in this. And it's pretty fucking tone deaf for the head of the fucking FBI to be lecturing the President-who-is-a-black-man on what mass incarceration is really all about and how using the term is insulting to the precious feelings of law enforcement officials.
Yes. When people talk about the government's monopoly on force, this is exactly what they're talking about.
But, this isn't a BAD thing. The government must, at some level, have access to the threat of force. Otherwise, anyone who has access to any level of sustained force can seize control of the country.
I feel that Comey's statement is correct here. The people used to 'fear' moral judgement before god (at least, that was what they told themselves, and that system had even more problems than our modern one). Now they should fear that if they break the law, and harm society, that the government will use its monopoly on force to punish them.
Now, punishment should take many forms, and be just and fit the crime. Punishment shouldn't be the only tool. But people should fear legal punishment for their crimes. Imagining that people should not fear punishment is proposing a world where the government does not require force.
Comey believes you should fear the consequence of lying to the cops.
If you would like this to be true, enforcement is required.
Bad enforcement is a bug, not a design spec.
Not just fear the consequences, but fear them like people feared the wrath of God. Combined with views on the phrase "mass incarceration" I think we have some pretty strong hints on how he views law enforcements place in society.
If somebody can give me the page number where Comey talks to Obama about mass incarceration I will post a broader summary and try to be as fair as possible.
After the hospital staff told his wife that the baby was just colicky, and she'd just never had to deal with a colicky baby before.
As it turns out that Comey and I have shared experience on this (our doctor said it was gas. It wasn't.), I actually appreciate the brief heads up on this. Probably would have had to shelve the book for a month if I didn't go in prepared to read about this.
"As I stared out of my Manhattan office window and remembered that young minister, I was suddenly ashamed of myself. He was not famous. I was probably the only person outside Richmond who even knew his name. And here I was, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, hesitating to prosecute Martha Stewart because it would bring criticism. I was actually considering letting her go because she was rich and famous. What a miscarriage of justice. What a coward I was. I asked Dave Kelley to find out how many people had been indicted in the United States the previous year for lying to federal investigators. How many “regular people” lied and then paid dearly for it? The answer was two thousand. Kelley told me I needed to stop wringing my hands; this was the right thing to do and I should get on with it. He was right. I told my staff to indict Martha Stewart and decided Karen Seymour should lead the case at trial."
"As I stared out of my Manhattan office window and remembered that young minister, I was suddenly ashamed of myself. He was not famous. I was probably the only person outside Richmond who even knew his name. And here I was, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, hesitating to prosecute Martha Stewart because it would bring criticism. I was actually considering letting her go because she was rich and famous. What a miscarriage of justice. What a coward I was. I asked Dave Kelley to find out how many people had been indicted in the United States the previous year for lying to federal investigators. How many “regular people” lied and then paid dearly for it? The answer was two thousand. Kelley told me I needed to stop wringing my hands; this was the right thing to do and I should get on with it. He was right. I told my staff to indict Martha Stewart and decided Karen Seymour should lead the case at trial."
Yep, he took the wrong message from that.
We need more Larry Krasners, and fewer James Comeys.
Yes. When people talk about the government's monopoly on force, this is exactly what they're talking about.
But, this isn't a BAD thing. The government must, at some level, have access to the threat of force. Otherwise, anyone who has access to any level of sustained force can seize control of the country.
I feel that Comey's statement is correct here. The people used to 'fear' moral judgement before god (at least, that was what they told themselves, and that system had even more problems than our modern one). Now they should fear that if they break the law, and harm society, that the government will use its monopoly on force to punish them.
Now, punishment should take many forms, and be just and fit the crime. Punishment shouldn't be the only tool. But people should fear legal punishment for their crimes. Imagining that people should not fear punishment is proposing a world where the government does not require force.
People aren't saying the government shouldn't have a monopoly on force.
They're saying that "people must fear the law. like they feared hell." is just fucked up bullshit, especially considering the harm that "fear of God" has done to people.
like, the only way to square the statement is take it to mean that experiencing the law should be particularly unpleasant. it is saying that part of the goal of the law should be creating fear in people.
I’d like to say that it’s pretty un-fucking-believable that:
- A USA thinks back to the time he prosecuted a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the charges because that is actual justice
... and this is somehow a bad thing to so many people on this board.
I mean, I know it’s hard to admit when An Evil Republican does the right thing, but come on.
I’d like to say that it’s pretty un-fucking-believable that:
- A USA thinks back to the time he prosecuted a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the charges because that is actual justice
... and this is somehow a bad thing to so many people on this board.
I mean, I know it’s hard to admit when An Evil Republican does the right thing, but come on.
To explain the leftist view point by analogy, it would be like realizing one day that your private prison empire has a habit of not hiring female guards.
I’d like to say that it’s pretty un-fucking-believable that:
- A USA thinks back to the time he prosecuted a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the charges because that is actual justice
... and this is somehow a bad thing to so many people on this board.
I mean, I know it’s hard to admit when An Evil Republican does the right thing, but come on.
Because it really isn't the right thing in the long run. The right thing would be to consider that, if he was so willing to give Stewart a pass, perhaps he should be rethinking how he was treating all the other 2000 people charged with the same crime. That's the point of contrasting him with Krasner - a reformer turned DA who is using his power to make the law more humane.
"As I stared out of my Manhattan office window and remembered that young minister, I was suddenly ashamed of myself. He was not famous. I was probably the only person outside Richmond who even knew his name. And here I was, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, hesitating to prosecute Martha Stewart because it would bring criticism. I was actually considering letting her go because she was rich and famous. What a miscarriage of justice. What a coward I was. I asked Dave Kelley to find out how many people had been indicted in the United States the previous year for lying to federal investigators. How many “regular people” lied and then paid dearly for it? The answer was two thousand. Kelley told me I needed to stop wringing my hands; this was the right thing to do and I should get on with it. He was right. I told my staff to indict Martha Stewart and decided Karen Seymour should lead the case at trial."
Yep, he took the wrong message from that.
We need more Larry Krasners, and fewer James Comeys.
What are you saying was the right message here? More leniency for crimes in general? Or specific leniency for certain groups (black ministers)?
I’d like to say that it’s pretty un-fucking-believable that:
- A USA thinks back to the time he prosecuted a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the charges because that is actual justice
... and this is somehow a bad thing to so many people on this board.
I mean, I know it’s hard to admit when An Evil Republican does the right thing, but come on.
Because it really isn't the right thing in the long run. The right thing would be to consider that, if he was so willing to give Stewart a pass, perhaps he should be rethinking how he was treating all the other 2000 people charged with the same crime. That's the point of contrasting him with Krasner - a reformer turned DA who is using his power to make the law more humane.
I feel like that sort of hinges on why you are considering leniency. If the charge was rape, and he was considering leniency for the famous person for the reasons he states (political backlash), presumably you would reach a different conclusion because you believe the crime deserves punishment.
So in a sense he did reach the right conclusion that political backlash is a bullshit reason to consider leniency, but maybe the fact that he even considered it indicates that the crime was small enough that more leniency in general might be ok.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I’d like to say that it’s pretty un-fucking-believable that:
- A USA thinks back to the time he prosecuted a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the charges because that is actual justice
... and this is somehow a bad thing to so many people on this board.
I mean, I know it’s hard to admit when An Evil Republican does the right thing, but come on.
Let’s change the terms so it’s more explicit.
- A USA thinks back to the time he framed a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the frame because that is actual justice
Actual justice is not charging either person. It’s awful hard to suggest that a positive injustice against a white person somehow makes up for positive injustice against a black person. It does not, it is rather the insane notion of equality that Republicans themselves rail so hard against.
The proper evaluation is whether or not the underlying crime deserved prosecution and an evaluation based on that. Maybe the underlying crime was significant enough in both cases. But that is where the only true “law and order” leniency could come in. If he was considering it for her he should have been considering it for him
Yes, that is a totally different situation. Well done!
I am not sure what your point is, because in the example given, they were both actionable crimes.
Were they? Because like... that seems to be a point of contention.
Yesss....?
In the first case, the junior preacher was an accessory to the money laundering, embezzlement, and government contract corruption schemes being committed by his boss, but denied being a part of them when the investigators knew he was part of it. He was later given up by his boss as part of a plea deal for a lesser sentence, and was therefore sent to jail.
In the second case, the fabulously wealthy and well-loved Martha Stewart denied being part of an insider trading scheme, and then later bragged to her friend that she had pulled a fast one on the cops. She was therefore sent to jail.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited April 2018
The whole story seems to be a clear analogy to the Hillary situation. “I was tempted to consider going easy on this rich white woman for political reasons but then I made the right call for justice! Just like I always do.”
I mean this is a book that Comey describes as being a series of lessons on proper leadership, and unlike say Profiles in Courage the examples are all him, right? Transparent attempt at self-justification.
The whole story seems to be a clear analogy to the Hillary situation. “I was tempted to consider going easy on this rich white woman for political reasons but then I made the right call for justice! Just like I always do.”
I mean this is a book that Comey describes as being a series of lessons on proper leadership, and unlike say Profiles in Courage the examples are all him, right? Transparent attempt at self-justification.
The whole story seems to be a clear analogy to the Hillary situation. “I was tempted to consider going easy on this rich white woman for political reasons but then I made the right call for justice! Just like I always do.”
I mean this is a book that Comey describes as being a series of lessons on proper leadership, and unlike say Profiles in Courage the examples are all him, right? Transparent attempt at self-justification.
Yeah, he doesn't even mention Hilary until way later and doesn't connect those two cases at all. The book is merely a walk through of his life beginning from when he was held hostage in his home by a rapist, up to the Trump era. He can tend to talk himself up a lot, but in very, very mundane ways.
To explain the leftist view point by analogy, it would be like realizing one day that your private prison empire has a habit of not hiring female guards.
He actually admits this in another chapter in regards to the FBI being almost 90% Caucasian, and how he pushed for recruitment of non-males and minorities. The guy barely comes across as a republican aside from being old and white.
I'm not trying to defend him too much, as he has his faults for sure. There are definitely some wonky ass opinions in here (he completely doesn't understand why Apple and Google sell encrypted devices as a positive point for the public for instance), but he explains how he comes to those conclusions pretty well, and admits when his worldview can be stymied by his position.
Again, there's a lot of strong conclusions being drawn by little cherry picked quotes.
On another topic, my favourite anecdote so far is in regards to Robert Mueller and how he was pushed by other department heads to be a little more personable towards his staff. So Mueller, who's office is within walking distance of all his subordinates, picks up his phone and dials each one individually, simply asking, "how are you? Good? Good." then hanging up and dialling the next with the same, curt conversation.
He actually admits this in another chapter in regards to the FBI being almost 90% Caucasian, and how he pushed for recruitment of non-males and minorities.
That's nice and all, but wasn't really the point I was making there.
Yes, that is a totally different situation. Well done!
I am not sure what your point is, because in the example given, they were both actionable crimes.
Were they? Because like... that seems to be a point of contention.
What the shit are you talking about dude with this 'one was framed' angle
I did not say that. I was highlighting the contention. That is, that the charging was a bad thing rather than a good
You are not making any sense whatsoever here. I'm trying to understand but I keep getting hung up on the part where you seem to be trying to suggest that lying to the FBI ought not be something you get charged for.
Changing the situation to a made-up thing where it's actually a miscarriage of justice from the beginning isn't a useful way to get there.
Yes, that is a totally different situation. Well done!
I am not sure what your point is, because in the example given, they were both actionable crimes.
Were they? Because like... that seems to be a point of contention.
What the shit are you talking about dude with this 'one was framed' angle
I did not say that. I was highlighting the contention. That is, that the charging was a bad thing rather than a good
You are not making any sense whatsoever here. I'm trying to understand but I keep getting hung up on the part where you seem to be trying to suggest that lying to the FBI ought not be something you get charged for.
Changing the situation to a made-up thing where it's actually a miscarriage of justice from the beginning isn't a useful way to get there.
Just because you can get charged doesn’t mean you should get charged. Changing the situation highlighted the argument being presented that was not understood. It should have been clear that the thing chosen was immaterial except insomuch as it was clearly a positive injustice.
Posts
I think he's more worried about the American populace thinking the jobs done at impeachment.
I have often been confused by my lay interpretation of violence and the term as used in, say, discussions of politics or sociology. English needs to steal some new words to separate the two.
Violence isn't just busting heads.
literally no one in this thread has said this.
It's all force, and broadly saying "force is great, in fact, we should make sure that since people don't fear god anymore (a baseless assertion, by the way), they should mega fear the state" is blithely unaware of how the State actually metes out its violence. Because it is absolutely discriminatory. There are people who will never fear the state and do huge, society harming ill. And there are people who already fear the state and fear it because it is actively, continuously damaging them.
He is not saying this shit in a vacuum. American culture exists, and if you just fart out "yeah maaaaan, people should fear the long arm of the law because the law is great" I'm going to roll my eyes. It's incredibly obtuse and only serves those who will never be touched by its influence.
it's like saying you know what, everyone should fear cats in this country, cats will fucking eat you if you step out of line
and part of the country is full of mice who are already eaten daily by cats, and part of the country are dogs who never will be. You haven't said anything useful, instead you've actively re-enforced the status quo.
Why would that be his issue? He seems to have a personal problem with Trump, not the overall rot in the Republican party.
Ever been arrested, spool? Because even when it goes nicely it's not what you'd call pleasant and if they have the slightest reason to it will get literal-definition violent fast. Like "You aren't following instructions exactly and instantly so I'm going to slam you to the floor and drag your limbs into cuffing position".
Heaven forbid we expect the Ur-Cop to explore what violence actually is with regards to his world view and profession.
Also, the concept of a state monopoly on violence goes back to the 1500s so I think that might predate notions of "academic social justice".
These posts are not helpful. Do better.
This isn't on topic in the least.
yeah its very paternalistic and seemingly feels the country needs to attone for electing trump by dealing with Trump for the rest of his presidency. Borderline accelerationist in thinking "well if shit gets real bad people will understand" ignoring how for a lot of people bad means "dead, in jail, or deported" Its easy to ask the country pay for their sins when a person like Comey will not deal with any of those issues.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's a Republican who was a W's Deputy Attorney General who signed off on waterboarding, when he knew it was torture and illegal by his own admission. Only in Trump world does his villainy seem gray instead of the black.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Plus the hundreds of muslims and muslim-looking people the FBI sucked up in the 2000s
Which is ultimately the thing he keeps getting shit on for from the left in my experience. He simply refuses to admit he fucked up. He can't do it. It comes through in his interviews and in the quotes from the book.
Did you, like, miss the 2016 election? There was huge talk about this. Yeah, the politics of the 90s were very different on this issue.
The thing is, it's fucking 20 years later and the politics on this issue have shifted dramatically and these are not the positions held by current black leadership. Like, you know, the President fucking Obama.
It is also entirely fair to place the blame on law enforcement since they have consistently been shown to apply the law in a racists manner on multiple levels. No one claimed they were the only ones responsible and that claim isn't germane to the point anyway.
It is absolutely true that mass incarceration is a problem in the US and specifically the mass incarceration of black men and that law enforcement has a hand in this. And it's pretty fucking tone deaf for the head of the fucking FBI to be lecturing the President-who-is-a-black-man on what mass incarceration is really all about and how using the term is insulting to the precious feelings of law enforcement officials.
But, this isn't a BAD thing. The government must, at some level, have access to the threat of force. Otherwise, anyone who has access to any level of sustained force can seize control of the country.
I feel that Comey's statement is correct here. The people used to 'fear' moral judgement before god (at least, that was what they told themselves, and that system had even more problems than our modern one). Now they should fear that if they break the law, and harm society, that the government will use its monopoly on force to punish them.
Now, punishment should take many forms, and be just and fit the crime. Punishment shouldn't be the only tool. But people should fear legal punishment for their crimes. Imagining that people should not fear punishment is proposing a world where the government does not require force.
If you would like this to be true, enforcement is required.
Bad enforcement is a bug, not a design spec.
Not just fear the consequences, but fear them like people feared the wrath of God. Combined with views on the phrase "mass incarceration" I think we have some pretty strong hints on how he views law enforcements place in society.
As it turns out that Comey and I have shared experience on this (our doctor said it was gas. It wasn't.), I actually appreciate the brief heads up on this. Probably would have had to shelve the book for a month if I didn't go in prepared to read about this.
"As I stared out of my Manhattan office window and remembered that young minister, I was suddenly ashamed of myself. He was not famous. I was probably the only person outside Richmond who even knew his name. And here I was, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, hesitating to prosecute Martha Stewart because it would bring criticism. I was actually considering letting her go because she was rich and famous. What a miscarriage of justice. What a coward I was. I asked Dave Kelley to find out how many people had been indicted in the United States the previous year for lying to federal investigators. How many “regular people” lied and then paid dearly for it? The answer was two thousand. Kelley told me I needed to stop wringing my hands; this was the right thing to do and I should get on with it. He was right. I told my staff to indict Martha Stewart and decided Karen Seymour should lead the case at trial."
Yep, he took the wrong message from that.
We need more Larry Krasners, and fewer James Comeys.
People aren't saying the government shouldn't have a monopoly on force.
They're saying that "people must fear the law. like they feared hell." is just fucked up bullshit, especially considering the harm that "fear of God" has done to people.
like, the only way to square the statement is take it to mean that experiencing the law should be particularly unpleasant. it is saying that part of the goal of the law should be creating fear in people.
- A USA thinks back to the time he prosecuted a black relative nobody for a particular crime
- He realizes he’s considering giving a pass to a rich, famous, hugely popular white woman for the same crime
- He’s considering it because of the personal cost to himself and his team, in bad press, political concerns, and future job prospects
- He decides to go ahead with the charges because that is actual justice
... and this is somehow a bad thing to so many people on this board.
I mean, I know it’s hard to admit when An Evil Republican does the right thing, but come on.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
To explain the leftist view point by analogy, it would be like realizing one day that your private prison empire has a habit of not hiring female guards.
Because it really isn't the right thing in the long run. The right thing would be to consider that, if he was so willing to give Stewart a pass, perhaps he should be rethinking how he was treating all the other 2000 people charged with the same crime. That's the point of contrasting him with Krasner - a reformer turned DA who is using his power to make the law more humane.
What are you saying was the right message here? More leniency for crimes in general? Or specific leniency for certain groups (black ministers)?
edited to include followup post:
I feel like that sort of hinges on why you are considering leniency. If the charge was rape, and he was considering leniency for the famous person for the reasons he states (political backlash), presumably you would reach a different conclusion because you believe the crime deserves punishment.
So in a sense he did reach the right conclusion that political backlash is a bullshit reason to consider leniency, but maybe the fact that he even considered it indicates that the crime was small enough that more leniency in general might be ok.
Let’s change the terms so it’s more explicit.
Actual justice is not charging either person. It’s awful hard to suggest that a positive injustice against a white person somehow makes up for positive injustice against a black person. It does not, it is rather the insane notion of equality that Republicans themselves rail so hard against.
The proper evaluation is whether or not the underlying crime deserved prosecution and an evaluation based on that. Maybe the underlying crime was significant enough in both cases. But that is where the only true “law and order” leniency could come in. If he was considering it for her he should have been considering it for him
Yes, that is a totally different situation. Well done!
I am not sure what your point is, because in the example given, they were both actionable crimes.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Were they? Because like... that seems to be a point of contention.
Yesss....?
In the first case, the junior preacher was an accessory to the money laundering, embezzlement, and government contract corruption schemes being committed by his boss, but denied being a part of them when the investigators knew he was part of it. He was later given up by his boss as part of a plea deal for a lesser sentence, and was therefore sent to jail.
In the second case, the fabulously wealthy and well-loved Martha Stewart denied being part of an insider trading scheme, and then later bragged to her friend that she had pulled a fast one on the cops. She was therefore sent to jail.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I mean this is a book that Comey describes as being a series of lessons on proper leadership, and unlike say Profiles in Courage the examples are all him, right? Transparent attempt at self-justification.
Edit: withdrawn, see below
No, they aren't.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Fair enough.
What the shit are you talking about dude with this 'one was framed' angle
I did not say that. I was highlighting the contention. That is, that the charging was a bad thing rather than a good
He actually admits this in another chapter in regards to the FBI being almost 90% Caucasian, and how he pushed for recruitment of non-males and minorities. The guy barely comes across as a republican aside from being old and white.
I'm not trying to defend him too much, as he has his faults for sure. There are definitely some wonky ass opinions in here (he completely doesn't understand why Apple and Google sell encrypted devices as a positive point for the public for instance), but he explains how he comes to those conclusions pretty well, and admits when his worldview can be stymied by his position.
Again, there's a lot of strong conclusions being drawn by little cherry picked quotes.
On another topic, my favourite anecdote so far is in regards to Robert Mueller and how he was pushed by other department heads to be a little more personable towards his staff. So Mueller, who's office is within walking distance of all his subordinates, picks up his phone and dials each one individually, simply asking, "how are you? Good? Good." then hanging up and dialling the next with the same, curt conversation.
That's nice and all, but wasn't really the point I was making there.
You are not making any sense whatsoever here. I'm trying to understand but I keep getting hung up on the part where you seem to be trying to suggest that lying to the FBI ought not be something you get charged for.
Changing the situation to a made-up thing where it's actually a miscarriage of justice from the beginning isn't a useful way to get there.
Just because you can get charged doesn’t mean you should get charged. Changing the situation highlighted the argument being presented that was not understood. It should have been clear that the thing chosen was immaterial except insomuch as it was clearly a positive injustice.